do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-854/19: Action brought on 17 December 2019 – Franz Schröder v EUIPO – RDS Design (MONTANA)
Date: 2019-12-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic commerce, furniture industry, plumbing equipment, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law








C_2020054EN.01006001.xml










17.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 54/60






Action brought on 17 December 2019 – Franz Schröder v EUIPO – RDS Design (MONTANA)
(Case T-854/19)
(2020/C 54/65)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Franz Schröder GmbH & Co. KG (Delbrück-Nordhagen, Germany) (represented by: L. Pechan, and N. Fangmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: RDS Design ApS (Allerød, Denmark)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark MONTANA – European Union trade mark No 10 708 881

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 October 2019 in Case R 2393/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


uphold the application for a declaration of invalidity and declare the European Union trademark No. 10 708 881 invalid for the contested goods and services;










—


order EUIPO and, if appropriate, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 95(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9656 — CD&R/Anixter) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 424/08
Date: 2019-12-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: communications systems, economic concentration, electrical engineering, electricity supply, electronics industry, information security, investment company, merger control








C_2019424EN.01002101.xml










17.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 424/21






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9656 — CD&R/Anixter)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 424/08)

1.   
On 10 December 2019, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


Clayton, Dubilier & Rice Fund X, L.P. (‘CD&R’, United States),










—


Anixter International Inc. (‘Anixter’, United States).




CD&R acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Anixter.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for CD&R: private equity investment group, which originates, structures and acts as a lead equity investor in management buyouts, strategic minority equity investments and other strategic investments,










—


for Anixter: global distributor of network & security solutions, electrical & electronic solutions, and utility power solutions.






3.   
On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.
Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.


4.   
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:
M.9656 — CD&R/Anixter
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:
Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu
Fax +32 22964301
Postal address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË







(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Case T-188/16: Order of the General Court of 17 December 2019 — repowermap.org v EUIPO — Repower (REPOWER) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Work mark REPOWER — Revocation of the contested decision — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2019-12-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electrical energy, energy production, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020061EN.01003701.xml










24.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 61/37






Order of the General Court of 17 December 2019 — repowermap.org v EUIPO — Repower (REPOWER)
(Case T-188/16) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Work mark REPOWER - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)
(2020/C 61/46)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: repowermap.org (Bern, Switzerland) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Repower AG (Brusio, Switzerland) (represented by: R. Kunz-Hallstein and H. P. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 February 2016 (Case R 2311/2014-5) relating to invalidity proceedings between repowermap.org and Repower.

Operative part of the order







1.



There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.











2.



The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) is ordered to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 222, 20.6.2016.
Case T-864/19: Action brought on 17 December 2019 – AI and Others v ECDC
Date: 2019-12-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European civil service, indemnification








C_2020061EN.01005301.xml










24.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 61/53






Action brought on 17 December 2019 – AI and Others v ECDC
(Case T-864/19)
(2020/C 61/67)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: AI, HV, HW and HY (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the ECDC of 11 February 2019 rejecting their request for compensation of 11 October 2018;










—


annul, if need be, the decision of 10 September 2019 rejecting their complaint of 10 May 2019;










—


order compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered by the applicants;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their action, the applicants, having specified their individual factual situations, then set out their allegations of the fault committed by the defendant, the damage suffered, and the link between the fault and the damage.
Case T-210/19: Order of the General Court of 17 December 2019 — Societá Agricola Tenuta di Rimale and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — Common agricultural policy — Binding rules relating to the regulation of the supply of cheese benefiting from a protected designation of origin — Refusal of the application for the adoption of implementing acts — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2019-12-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Italy, common agricultural policy, cows’ milk cheese, designation of origin, product designation, quality control of agricultural products, supply








C_2020061EN.01004302.xml










24.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 61/43






Order of the General Court of 17 December 2019 — Societá Agricola Tenuta di Rimale and Others v Commission
(Case T-210/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Common agricultural policy - Binding rules relating to the regulation of the supply of cheese benefiting from a protected designation of origin - Refusal of the application for the adoption of implementing acts - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility)
(2020/C 61/55)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicants: Societá Agricola Tenuta di Rimale (Fidenza, Italy) and the 9 other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the order (represented by: M. Libertini, A. Scognamiglio and M. Spolidoro, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and F. Moro, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the Commission’s letter of 6 February 2019 (Ares(2019) 677860) refusing the applicants’ application for (i) a declaration as to the alleged infringement by the Italian authorities of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 671) and of Article 101 TFEU; and (ii) the adoption by the Commission of implementing acts, on the basis of Article 150(8) of that regulation, requiring that the Italian Republic repeal rules relating to the regulation of the supply of Parmigiano Reggiano cheese for the period 2017-2019.

Operative part of the order







1.



The action is dismissed as inadmissible.











2.



Societá Agricola Tenuta di Rimale and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex are ordered to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.
Case T-756/18: Order of the General Court of 17 December 2019 — AG v Europol (Action for annulment — Civil service — Decision (EU) 2015/1889 on the dissolution of the Europol pension fund — Failure to follow the pre-litigation procedure — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2019-12-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, pension fund, staff regulations (EU), supplementary pension








C_2020061EN.01003802.xml










24.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 61/38






Order of the General Court of 17 December 2019 — AG v Europol
(Case T-756/18) (1)

(Action for annulment - Civil service - Decision (EU) 2015/1889 on the dissolution of the Europol pension fund - Failure to follow the pre-litigation procedure - Inadmissibility)
(2020/C 61/48)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: AG (represented by: C. Abrar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (represented by: J. Teal and A. Ketels, acting as Agents, and D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of Europol’s implied decision refusing the applicant’s complaint of 2 July 2018 against Europol’s implied refusal to adopt a reasoned decision concerning his entitlements in the provisional independent pension fund created by Article 37 of Annex 6 to the Europol Staff Regulations.

Operative part of the order







1.



The action is dismissed.











2.



There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene made by the Council of the European Union.











3.



AC and the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) shall each bear their own costs.











4.



The Council shall bear its own costs relating to the application for leave to intervene.







(1)  OJ C 93, 11.3.2019.
Case T-856/19: Action brought on 17 December 2019 – Franz Schröder v EUIPO – RDS Design (MONTANA)
Date: 2019-12-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, architecture, building industry, furniture industry, product design, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020054EN.01006201.xml










17.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 54/62






Action brought on 17 December 2019 – Franz Schröder v EUIPO – RDS Design (MONTANA)
(Case T-856/19)
(2020/C 54/67)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Franz Schröder GmbH & Co. KG (Delbrück-Nordhagen, Germany) (represented by: L. Pechan and N. Fangmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: RDS Design ApS (Allerød, Denmark)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark MONTANA – International registration designating the European Union No 869 610

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 October 2019 in Case R 2394/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


uphold the application for a declaration of invalidity and declare the International trademark registration No. 869 610 invalid for the European Union for the contested goods and services;










—


order EUIPO and, if appropriate, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 95(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-618/18: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di L’Aquila (Italy) — Gabriele Di Girolamo v Ministero della Giustizia (Request for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Fixed-term employment — ETUC-UNICE-CEEP — Definition of a ‘fixed-term worker’ — Giudice di Pace — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2019-12-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: framework agreement, independence of the judiciary, infringement of EU law, judge, magistrate, primacy of EU law, principle of legal certainty, right to justice, staff assessment, temporary employment








C_2020068EN.01002001.xml










2.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 68/20






Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di L’Aquila (Italy) — Gabriele Di Girolamo v Ministero della Giustizia
(Case C-618/18) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Fixed-term employment - ETUC-UNICE-CEEP - Definition of a ‘fixed-term worker’ - Giudice di Pace - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Manifest inadmissibility)
(2020/C 68/19)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Giudice di pace di L’Aquila

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Gabriele Di Girolamo

Defendant: Ministero della Giustizia

intervening party: Unione Nazionale Giudici di Pace (Unagipa)

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di L’Aquila (Magistrates Court, L’Aquila, Italy), made by decision of 19 September 2018, is manifestly inadmissible.


(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.
Case T-21/18: Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2019 — Poland v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Fruit and vegetable sectors — Aid to producer groups — Expenditure incurred by Poland — Deficiencies in key and secondary controls — Verification of recognition plans and recognition criteria — Checks on applications for aid — Eligibility of producer groups — Economic consistency — Necessity and eligibility for financing — Reasonableness of the expenditure — Systemic deficiencies — Risk to EAGF — Corrective measures — Flat-rate corrections of 25 %)
Date: 2019-12-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, economic and social cohesion, eligibility criteria, fruit, producer organisation, rural development, vegetable








C_2020054EN.01004601.xml










17.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 54/46






Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2019 — Poland v Commission
(Case T-21/18) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Fruit and vegetable sectors - Aid to producer groups - Expenditure incurred by Poland - Deficiencies in key and secondary controls - Verification of recognition plans and recognition criteria - Checks on applications for aid - Eligibility of producer groups - Economic consistency - Necessity and eligibility for financing - Reasonableness of the expenditure - Systemic deficiencies - Risk to EAGF - Corrective measures - Flat-rate corrections of 25 %)
(2020/C 54/50)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, M. Pawlicka and D. Krawczyk, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Lewis and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/2014 of 8 November 2017 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2017 L 292, p. 61).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.







(1)  OJ C 104, 19.3.2018.
Case C-950/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 17 December 2019 — A
Date: 2019-12-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: audit, auditing, financial control, management audit, work contract








C_2020077EN.01003301.xml










9.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 77/33






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 17 December 2019 — A
(Case C-950/19)
(2020/C 77/44)
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Helsingin hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: A

Other party to the proceedings: Patentti- ja rekisterihallituksen tilintarkastuslautakunta

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 22a(1) (inserted by Directive 2014/56/EU) (1) of Directive 2006/43/EC (2) to be interpreted as meaning that a key audit partner takes up a position of the kind referred to in this provision upon conclusion of the employment contract?










2.


If the answer to the first question is in the negative: Is Article 22a(1) to be interpreted as meaning that a key audit partner takes up a position of the kind referred to in this provision upon commencing employment in the position concerned?






(1)  OJ 2014 L 158, p. 196.

(2)  Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts, amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC and repealing Council Directive 84/253/EEC (OJ 2006 L 157, p. 87).
Euro exchange ratesSource: reference exchange rate published by the ECB. 16 December 20192019/C 424/04
Date: 2019-12-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019424EN.01000401.xml










17.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 424/4






Euro exchange rates (1)

16 December 2019
(2019/C 424/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1146 




JPY


Japanese yen


121,97 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4731 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83415 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,4213 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0953 




ISK


Iceland króna


136,80 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,0280 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,483 




HUF


Hungarian forint


329,01 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2657 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7791 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,5190 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6177 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4621 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6856 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6859 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5096 




KRW


South Korean won


1 304,67 




ZAR


South African rand


16,1305 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8025 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4401 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 609,97 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6167 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,421 




RUB


Russian rouble


69,8317 




THB


Thai baht


33,689 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,5491 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,2022 




INR


Indian rupee


79,1063 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.